Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex vs Associated Newspapers

[JudgeJoe]

but not sure what it has to do with the actual case itself?
JMO

S & BBB:
That is correct. The tuition claims have nothing to do with privacy, copyright or Data Protection Act, the point of this lawsuit.

 

[Boxer]

Right now it's his word vs hers. Keep in mind, she is the one who initiated the lawsuit. The facts will come out in court. Such a sordid mess.

Sorry, about what? The remaining issue is copyright. Judge Warby has said the assertion dishonest unfair biased coverage portion of the case can be pursued but not in this case. To me that means he is going look purely at copyright. That really isn't a question. Under law she owns her content.

 

[otto]

@otto

In the above quoted article it says that “they” (Harry and Meghan) . Just thought this might help answer your earlier wonderings about who was paying for the proceedings.

( ETA Not sure just cause “they” said it that makes it so but I saw it so i shared it.)

Thanks for finding that! Now the question is : what does "private funds" mean to Markle and Harry? "Financial independence" means relying on the 2.4 million annual donation from Prince Charles, so private funds could very well mean money from Charles. Private funds could me Royal Family money.

" They say they will use private funds to bring the proceedings, which were announced at the end of the couple’s overseas trip to South Africa, overshadowing their other announcements."​

Why is Meghan suing the Mail on Sunday?

 

[JudgeJoe]

Thanks for finding that! Now the question is : what does "private funds" mean to Markle and Harry? "Financial independence" means relying on the 2.4 million annual donation from Prince Charles, so private funds could very well mean money from Charles. Private funds could me Royal Family money.

" They say they will use private funds to bring the proceedings, which were announced at the end of the couple’s overseas trip to South Africa, overshadowing their other announcements."​

Why is Meghan suing the Mail on Sunday?

Ok. I can see the taxpayer concern & controversy. But who funds the lawsuit- or doesn’t fund the lawsuit- has no bearing on the issue or result. Just sayin’.

 

[otto]

I may have missed it .. although TM has said he has the bank statements to prove he paid her tuition, I haven't seen that he has in fact provided those statements to the court.

As for whether Meghan worked or contributed to her tuition:

Speaking about her time at Northwestern, Markle said it was only through scholarships, financial aid, and work-study programs — where her "earnings from a job on campus went directly towards [her] tuition" — that she was able to attend college.

"And, without question, it was worth every effort," she added.

Markle's father submitted documents and a listing of financial assistance to the High Court, which I understand to mean that he has provided proof that he paid for those expenses. That is, the High Court doesn't take someone's word regarding expenses, they need exhibits attached to documents.

More importantly, if Markle paid all of her tuition, she should have proof that she paid the tuition and has repaid all student loans. She has not produced any proof, but her father has.

"In documents submitted to the High Court ... Listing the financial assistance Mr Markle claims to have given his daughter over the years, the documents state: "Mr Markle had supported the claimant throughout her childhood and youth.

"He had paid her private school fees. He had paid all her college tuition and after she left Northwestern University he continued to pay off her student loans even after she had landed a well-paid role in suits."​

Thomas Markle: I paid for Meghan's school and university - even after her TV success

 

[otto]

This is an excellent article to help weed out the drama from the issue:

Edited for brevity:
“Meghan is suing for breach of copyright, infringement of her privacy, and breaches of the Data Protection Act – an act beefed up last year as part of GDPR changes.

The copyright aspect is based on the principle that the author of a letter retains ownership of its content, regardless of who possesses the piece of paper.

“A letter is a copyright work as it is a literary work,” Alex Newman, national head of intellectual property law at Irwin Mitchell solicitors, said this year. “As soon as you create a copyright work you will own the copyright until it expires automatically. This gives you the right to prevent anyone else copying, or issuing to the public, the whole or a substantial part of your copyrighted work.”

Judges have been increasingly willing to find against the media in privacy cases... If the MoS loses the case it could have wider implications for all journalists who want to report on leaked private documents.

So... the legal significance of this case has nothing to with family feuds, friends solicited for positive PR, who paid for college, where they’re living or how they spent mother’s day. Even credibility of the parties is not relevant. This case is about privacy, ownership, copyright. And whether media can use edited private documents to portray someone in a specific light, telling a truth, but not a whole truth, skewing public perception. This has impacts to celebrities, politicians, current events & the average Joe. I think it is an important case, could establish precedent.

Reposting link:
Why is Meghan suing the Mail on Sunday?

What is missing from this is the dynamics of the letter. Markle gossiped with 5 friends about that letter, the 5 friends badmouthed Markle's father and mentioned the letter to the media.

His options are to do nothing, or to stand up for himself. Since he was badmouthed in the media, does he have the right to defend himself in the media and provide proof that the 5 friend gossip was false?

 

[otto]

S & BBB:
That is correct. The tuition claims have nothing to do with privacy, copyright or Data Protection Act, the point of this lawsuit.

They are mentioned in court documents related to this lawsuit, and they do speak to the question of whether Markle and her father are truthful.

 

[Boxer]

Her awards will be on file.
To have even been eligible for the work-study program at all shows which band of paying for college she was in.
She was in the scholarship/grant/aid tier.
Like a said he probably paid the "family share of cost" which is the gap beteeen the total of the package of scholarships, grants, aid and the full bill.
All she said is that she would not have been able to go to college without the support of the scholarships and aid. She was encouraging girls with limited means to excel.
She wanted them know if they do the work the assistance is out there to go.

MOO more negative twisting by the press.

 

[otto]

Ok. I can see the taxpayer concern & controversy. But who funds the lawsuit- or doesn’t fund the lawsuit- has no bearing on the issue or result. Just sayin’.

I think it makes a big difference. If "private funds" means Royal Family money, like it usually does, then Markle has no reason to accept a settlement or put this behind her. By dragging it out, the Royal Family has to pay her legal fees, the defendant's legal fees (since she refused the settlement), and what could be future substantial costs.

 

[otto]

Her awards will be on file.
To have even been eligible for the work-study program at all shows which band of paying for college she was in.
She was in the scholarship/grant/aid tier.
Like a said he probably paid the "family share of cost" which is the gap beteeen the total of the package of scholarships, grants, aid and the full bill.
All she said is that she would not have been able to go to college without the support of the scholarships and aid. She was encouraging girls with limited means to excel.
She wanted them know if they do the work the assistance is out there to go.

MOO more negative twisting by the press.

I thought it was a bit of twisting facts by Markle, giving the impression that she paid all costs for her education through hard work. In fact, her father paid tuition and is still paying the bill.

 

[Herat]

hmm if she received substantial financial aid - that would be on a Form 1098 and if he claimed her as a dependent he would need to have the 1098 to determine how much would be deductible for him - if anything. Those records would be important I would think but not sure what it has to do with the actual case itself?
JMO

I agree. It is a side discussion that is not directly relevant to the case, but I just wanted to point out there should be quite objective information available to verify the claim.

I am not sure whether financial documents have been listed by the court or if we are getting word-of-mouth reports from either or both parties. I am seeing some interpretive drift and I just wanted to point out very objective documents would be expected, on either side.

Thank goodness I get along very well with my parents. For the life of me I wouldn't be able to find financial documents from 1999, I don't think.

Please return to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[Boxer]

Markle's father submitted documents and a listing of financial assistance to the High Court, which I understand to mean that he has provided proof that he paid for those expenses. That is, the High Court doesn't take someone's word regarding expenses, they need exhibits attached to documents.

More importantly, if Markle paid all of her tuition, she should have proof that she paid the tuition and has repaid all student loans. She has not produced any proof, but her father has.

"In documents submitted to the High Court ... Listing the financial assistance Mr Markle claims to have given his daughter over the years, the documents state: "Mr Markle had supported the claimant throughout her childhood and youth.

"He had paid her private school fees. He had paid all her college tuition and after she left Northwestern University he continued to pay off her student loans even after she had landed a well-paid role in suits."​

Thomas Markle: I paid for Meghan's school and university - even after her TV success

Tuition bills being submitted to the High Court, is this the same court, the court of copyright? What bearing does it have?

This thing about the tuition is that is part of his attempt to show she owes him money.

 

[Boxer]

I thought it was a bit of twisting facts by Markle, giving the impression that she paid all costs for her education through hard work. In fact, her father paid tuition and is still paying the bill.

Speaking about her time at Northwestern, Markle said it was only through scholarships, financial aid, and work-study programs — where her "earnings from a job on campus went directly towards [her] tuition" — that she was able to attend college.

She did not say he did not contribute, only that the scholarships, grants and aid made it possible.

 

[otto]

Tuition bills being submitted to the High Court, is this the same court, the court of copyright? What bearing does it have?

This thing about the tuition is that is part of his attempt to show she owes him money.

Not sure what you mean by "court of copyright." The case is heard in the High Court

"The preliminary hearing at Britain's High Court was the first stage of Meghan's legal action against the Mail on Sunday and its parent company, Associated Newspapers, for publishing what she describes as a “private and confidential” letter to her father in August 2018."​

Meghan's lawsuit against British tabloid has court hearing

 

[otto]

Speaking about her time at Northwestern, Markle said it was only through scholarships, financial aid, and work-study programs — where her "earnings from a job on campus went directly towards [her] tuition" — that she was able to attend college.

She did not say he did not contribute, only that the scholarships, grants and aid made it possible.

The problem with Markle's claim is that it is false. It is not "only through ... " that she was able to attend college. It was only through her father's generous decision to pay tuition that she was able to attend college.

In Markle's words, she's a self-made woman. In her father's words, he supported her financially well into adulthood.

"Speaking about her time at Northwestern, Markle said it was only through scholarships, financial aid, and work-study programs — where her "earnings from a job on campus went directly towards [her] tuition" — that she was able to attend college."​

Meghan Markle opened up about working in college to pay for her tuition during a royal tour speech

 

[Boxer]

Sounds to me that you mean
"Is any of the legal fund being supplied by Charles?"
Is that right?
Are you meaning Charles has no private funds?

 

[otto]

Sounds to me that you mean
"Is any of the legal fund being supplied by Charles?"
Is that right?
Are you meaning Charles has no private funds?

Not at all. As I said, according to Markle and Harry, "financial independence" means continuing to rely on Royal Family private funds.

Private funds to pay for the lawsuit probably means relying on Royal Family to cover the costs of the lawsuit.

 

[fridaybaker]

This is an excellent article to help weed out the drama from the issue:

Edited for brevity:
“Meghan is suing for breach of copyright, infringement of her privacy, and breaches of the Data Protection Act – an act beefed up last year as part of GDPR changes.

The copyright aspect is based on the principle that the author of a letter retains ownership of its content, regardless of who possesses the piece of paper.

“A letter is a copyright work as it is a literary work,” Alex Newman, national head of intellectual property law at Irwin Mitchell solicitors, said this year. “As soon as you create a copyright work you will own the copyright until it expires automatically. This gives you the right to prevent anyone else copying, or issuing to the public, the whole or a substantial part of your copyrighted work.”

Judges have been increasingly willing to find against the media in privacy cases... If the MoS loses the case it could have wider implications for all journalists who want to report on leaked private documents.

So... the legal significance of this case has nothing to with family feuds, friends solicited for positive PR, who paid for college, where they’re living or how they spent mother’s day. Even credibility of the parties is not relevant. This case is about privacy, ownership, copyright. And whether media can use edited private documents to portray someone in a specific light, telling a truth, but not a whole truth, skewing public perception. This has impacts to celebrities, politicians, current events & the average Joe. I think it is an important case, could establish precedent.

Reposting link:
Why is Meghan suing the Mail on Sunday?

Question here. If something a person writes is automatically considered to be copywrited, why bother with to register a copywriter. What am I missing.

 

[JudgeJoe]

Question here. If something a person writes is automatically considered to be copywrited, why bother with to register a copywriter. What am I missing.

Idk the full answer in UK law. But in USA, you do not register to copyright. In art or a website, you sign or put copyright symbol & it’s done. You have grounds to reinforce ownership of your protected work. It appears things are very similar in UK.
How copyright protects your work

 

[Boxer]

Sounds to me that you mean are any of the legal funds being supplied by Charles.
Is that right?
Are you meaning Charles has no private funds?

The problem with Markle's claim is that it is false. It is not "only through ... " that she was able to attend college. It was only through her father's generous decision to pay tuition that she was able to attend college.

In Markle's words, she's a self-made woman. In her father's words, he supported her financially well into adulthood.

"Speaking about her time at Northwestern, Markle said it was only through scholarships, financial aid, and work-study programs — where her "earnings from a job on campus went directly towards [her] tuition" — that she was able to attend college."​

Meghan Markle opened up about working in college to pay for her tuition during a royal tour speech

She is correct.
Only through assistance was she able to go.
Being eligible for the work study program is indicative of the financial aid band she was in. If the child is claimed in the parents taxes, recieving financial aid includes an obligation for a percentage of the school cost to be covered by the family.
It is the difference between the sum of all the awards and loans and the actual cost, called the "gap."
MOO I am sure he paid the gap anybe paid of some loans too.
But the reason she could go is the assistance not paying the gap.
I would like to see the records but have no idea what this has to do with the case.